Gregory Hecht

Something that I have noticed on these graphs is that the x axis does not have a consistent scale. Looking at the above graph, for instance, you can see that the distance on the x axis between Jan 3rd 2021 to March 14th 2021 (more than two months) is the same as the distance from March 14th 2021 to April 17th 2021 (just a few days more than a single month) and is also the same distance from June 26th 2021 to Feb 19th 2022 (nearly eight months). The result is an inaccurate view of the rate at which the collection's value has changed over time. Any chance of getting that fixed?

IMO: If these are numbered in the database by release order, then there should be something in the Notes field to indicate the volume number on the spine to avoid unnecessary confusion. My personal inclination would be to keep things simple and just go by volume number since (I assume, possibly incorrectly) that as time passes collectors of the series will be less concerned with release order than they will with the volume number. It should be noted that there is a precedence for numbering book releases in the database by the volume number and not chronological publication order. All of Marvel's Epic tpb titles are numbered in the database by the volume number rather than by release order.

Before anybody goes running too far down this rabbit hole, has @Mark J. Castaneda or anybody else from the HC editorial team indicated to what extent (i.e., the level of detail) they are willing to have this kind of info tracked in the database?

Bone #27 contains a note "Series returns to Cartoon Books" Bone #28 contains a note "Cartoon Books begins as publisher" This is a little confusing since #27 was actually the last issue that was originally printed by Image Comics, and #28 is actually the first issue where it was back under the Cartoon Books banner. I suggest either: (a) deleting the note for #27 or (b) replacing the note for #27 with something along the lines of "last issue published by Image Comics".

Good luck with that since that could get overly wordy (depending on what you are looking for here). In most cases, connecting variants are all from the same title or, if they span multiple titles, they are on books with the same/related storyline. For the ones that are all in the same title, is there really a need to include a descriptor beyond "connecting variant"? For the latter, would "Secret Crisis War connecting variant" suffice (where Secret Crisis War would be the name of the storyline)?

B.P.R.D.: War on Frogs Book #1 and Book #12 are duplicates. The confusion arises from the fact that the tpb for this series is marked as #12 on the spine as it is the twelfth volume of the first BPRD tpb series. I suggest that Book #12 be deleted and that a note regarding the spine numbering be added to the entry for Book #1.

A 1:100 (or 1 in 100) variant means that it was (in principle) retailers received one copy of that variant for every 100 copies that they ordered. In theory. There have been instances of these kinds of "incentive variants" showing up on distributor order forms many months later, indicating that there were surplus copies printed and that the total number of copies printed cannot be ascertained by collectors. That is different from a comic that has a known, limited copy count that was advertised as such. Thus, I am recommended *against* interchanging the two types of descriptors for variants. They mean different things and have different implications regarding their availability for collectors.

I don't think that is an equivalent argument. As I interpret the postings here, nobody is arguing that there shouldn't be a variant separate from the regular issue in this case. Instead, people are arguing that the signed and numbered and the signed artist's proofs all be listed as a single variant from the regular issue, not as two separate variants from the regular issue. In other words, this would be a case of #1 and #1/A (or whatever variant designation) rather than going with #1, #1/A, and #1/B.

It really is only just a difference in the numbering. If the 250 run were officially signed and the Artist's Proof copies were not (or vice versa) I'd get the rationale for making them separate items in the database. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

I would interpret this as 275 copies total. Assuming that the embossed seal is present on all of those copies, my opinion is that this should be listed as a single item rather than two.

Doesn't matter, ComicBase stills needs to catalog their stuff. ?‍♂️ ?

Well, Jimenez did the interior artwork, so it isn't so much that he is attaching his signature to Jim Lee's cover as it is attaching his signature to a book for which he did the inside pages.

On a tangentially related matter, does it make sense to include "Jewish superhero" in *all* of the issue notes?

I would not be in favor of recording legacy numbering in instances where it is not explicitly stated somewhere in the comic by the publisher. There have been a few examples of headscratchers where a publisher did or did not count certain issues to get to the particular milestone number that they desired.

The latest update added the title 2020 Iron Manual to the Books category. I am not familiar with this item. Is it an actual book that was a giveaway? Or is this something that is similar to Marvel's "Official Handbook" publications, meaning that it should be placed in the Magazine category?

My (very old) copy of Overstreet does indicate that Vampirella #3 had low distribution. It places the values in very similar ballparks, though. But, as I said, it is a very old copy of Overstreet, so it is very possible that the valuations may have moved at different rates over the years. Still, I am surprised that CB puts #1 at $775 and #3 at $1.4K (almost twice the value of #1). That sounds like something is a little askew... but I could be wrong. I would think that Heritage would have some data on those two issues... so if that kind of difference is warranted, there should be data to back it up. Also as a point of reference, the database puts the valuations for Vampirella #2 at $160, #4 at $165, #5 at $240, and #6 at $40.

I think that the Grading Notes field (which already exists) is supposed to serve this function. Any contents that a seller has in the Notes field that don't match the master database get imported into the Atomic Avenue listing. Sometimes those imported Notes are old field contents that used to be in the master database but got deleted or updated, but the seller's database still has the old info in there. Sometimes it is information about the particular copy of the comic that the seller put in there before the Grading Notes field existed. (The Grading Notes field came into existence not too long ago... so the Notes field was used for sellers' grading notes for many many years.) At this point, I suspect that the inconvenience that you describe is something that we'll just have to live with for quite some time. It would be problematic to require all AA sellers to go through each of their listings to transfer grading information out of the Notes field and into the Grading Information field. Sellers who have hundreds or even thousands of items for sale on AA would be REALLY UNHAPPY with that kind of labor intensive requirement... and if a seller has gone to the effort of putting together information to help a buyer understand the details of the condition of the item that they are selling, that isn't a seller that you want to piss off. ?

Way back in the day, this thread on the old msg boards took a look at suspect valuations in the database for some of Warren's magazines. Eventually the prices on those issues were "right sized" (more or less) but over the years since then unusual drift on some of those issues seems to have returned. Particular issues that I would suggest get a second look at pricing would include: Creepy (Magazine) #3, #5, #8, #11, #17 (holy cow!), #64 (because it is too low rather than too high), #71 (wow!), #78, #80 (!!!), #81 (!!!), #82, #84, #89, #96, #123. And probably also #12, #15, #16, #39, #72, #92, #103, #108, #132, #133, #137, #138, #142. I am less certain of the current market values for #1 and #2, so truly high grade copies of those issues might fetch the prices shown in the database. Eerie (Warren) #3, #7 (too low), #9, #28, #38, #39, #48, #63, #79, #81 (too low). And probably #13, #15, #17, #23, #25, #42, #47, #67, #68, #71, #73, #75 through #78, #90 (too low), #116, #118 though #120, #122, #123, #138 (too low). Similar comment re: issues #1 and #2 as for Creepy. Vampirella (Magazine) #3 (priced higher than #1?), #50, #68 (too low), #96, #100, #104 (too low), #111 (too low). And probably #14, #15, #19, #30, #70, #73, #92, #102, #103, #106, Annual #1. If #113 is truly valued at $2.7K, why in the world is #113-A only valued at $5.00? If Special Edition #1 is valued at $255, how is it that Special Edition #1 HC is only valued at $12.50?

I recognize that. My comment regarding the accuracy of the valuation was meant for Joel as he was asking for a price check. Which I don't think is really needed here. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that!

No, ComicBase is NOT asserting that $295 is the NM value for that issue, not even close. The database pegs that particular issue at $11.50 in NM condition. I don't think that the valuations in the CB database are out of whack, they actually seem to be lower than some other places (e.g., mycomicshop). If I understand Fred's question, he was less concerned about the fact that somebody has posted a copy w/ a Deadpool card for $295 and more concerned that particular listing was inappropriately inflating the valuation for that issue. He was assuming that all first print copies of X-Force #1 w/ trading cards would have the same value, but it turns out that the market does put the Deadpool card at a higher value.

My understanding is that the Deadpool card is indeed associated with greater demand than any of the other cards. I would say that $250 (unslabbed) is well above where the market is, but yes the Deadpool card version does realize a higher price on the market than the other cards.

Dynamic Forces I believe that they are part of a group of companies that includes Dynamite Entertainment. Dynamic Forces was especially active in the 90's/early 00's (if my memory serves correctly) contracting with publishers to make variant covers exclusively for them. DF would exclusively sell via mail (they placed advertisements in comics) and eventually online once the Internet became a thing. Based on their website, it looks like they are still an active business.

I agree with you that the fact that the comic was originally sold in a polybag should be noted in the master database. (Simply stating that a trading card was included with the comic doesn't necessarily mean that the issue was polybagged... there are plenty of instances where trading cards have been bound into the comic and therefore that issue was not sold in a polybag.) I'm just not seeing the rationale for listing the bagged state as a unique variant entry in the master database. Incorporated somehow into the condition field? Sure, if there is a reasonable way to do that which is reasonably intuitive for users of CB and AA.

The fact that the publisher issued the book in its signed state is what I think triggered the move to make that item its own variant. I'm sure that @Peter R. Bickford or @Mark J. Castaneda can clarify the thinking on that item if I am not correct. I can't speak to why your note wasn't accepted as part of the database entry, but again maybe Pete or Mark can provide thoughts on that. A bit of an odd duck, but my guess is that the "special CGC label" is what earned that issue its variant status. If those particular CGC'ed copies were indistinguishable for a copy that was sent by any old Tom, Dick, or Harry for slabbing by CGC, my bet is that there wouldn't be a separate issue entry for it in the master database. But I think that you are implying that these are the very rare exceptions that prove the rule that CGC cases don't really merit new variant issue entries in the master database... in which case I would agree with you. And I think that the same logic would apply to polybags containing periodical comics and shrinkwrap around hardcover comics.

Printings and variants are states that exist prior to the comic arriving in the hands of the purchaser. They are essentially states of existence that are determined by the publisher/manufacturer. These kinds of things merit unique issue entries in the master database. Condition (including whether or not a polybagged comic remains in that polybag) is a state of the comic that is ultimately the consequence of how the comic is treated and handled after it is produced by the publisher/manufacturer... most especially by the purchaser of that comic. For that reason, any new "Bagged" field would have to be treated as a condition, not as a variant or different printing. Changes in condition don't merit unique entries in the master database.